On May 12, 2014, at 05:46 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: >Mailman 3 is completely different from Mailman 3 and I see no synergy in >basing anything on the existing package. As of now, to my knowledge no >migration or upgrade scenarios exist from MM 2 to MM 3, and I'm not sure >if such code will be there in time for jessie. We do have code in the core to do updates from 2.1 to 3. It's well unit tested, but not battle tested. >It would therefore make most sense to me if MM 3 packaging was started fresh >with a new mailman3 package, allowing for both MM3 and the legacy release to >coexist while MM3 matures. When reliable upgrade or migration scenarios >exist, the mailman3 package could take over the mailman package, but I expect >that to be the case only after jessie. > >People interested in MM 3 are therefore very much invited to just start >packaging it under the mailman3 name, in any way they judge best. Agreed. The MM3 core is a well-behaved setuptools-based project so its packaging should be relatively easy. Hyperkitty and Postorius are Django-based applications. We (upstream) very definitely expect that people will want to run existing MM2.1 installations in parallel with MM3, at least for a while or while they're testing out the transition. I may not have time in the immediate future to do the packaging myself, but I will assist others in any way I can. -Barry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature